Historical accuracy

The Alamo: 13 Days to Glory also mentions the Treaty of 1824 and nary a Happy Birthday is sung. Based on a book by the same name which I haven't read yet, I can't say if this movie strayed much from the book or whether either is more historically accurate than the two movies you mention. I happen to prefer this movie to The Last Command and Wayne's The Alamo but there are some others out there including a newer one released in the last few years but even that movie has its detractors. Technically by definition, history can't change unless new contrary evidence is dug up. For historical events that have happened prior to any living witnesses, all that is left to sort through are personal letters and diaries. This is problematic as they more likely than not carry the personal bias of the writers especially when dealing with views on other people and their personalities. Someone wrote about General Santa Ana in the 13 Days thread that he is always portrayed as a madman. The Last Command did not but how will we ever know? People who wrote of him who liked him will say he was not mad while people who did not like him will write that he was.
KS

Cinematically, this is all soundstage fantasy! Historically, it's never mentioned in this Mexican-hating country that the whole Texian ball of puckey was based on slavery, little boys, not "freedom", except, as with today's rightwingery, the "freedom" to own slaves. Whatta buncha freedom fighters! Like Reagan's right wing death squad he celebrated in the WH as the "equivalent to our founding fathers". Either he knew the founders were a lot worse human beings than i know, or the sickening analogies are based on lies like the Alamo.

WHICH WAS: A site where the government that had banned slavery in its country wiped out a band of foreign slave-traders, who eventually won. So much for "freedom". Yeah, and Hitler was just a misunderstood dog-lover.

~~ Native Angeleno

Just as an aside, JW was the first pick for this but
it ended up with a perfectly cast Sterling Hayden instead

Let me clue you in on something: no movie has ever been made about the Alamo nor will there ever be that's historically accurate except on maybe one or two historical truths and that's it. What you have to understand is that we actually know very little of what really happened there that you could take to court for two reasons: first, all the defenders were killed, second, even the Mexican eyewitnesses who were there disagree on all the major events that took place. For example, there are those who claim that Davy Crockett was killed as is depicted in this version as well as the Walt Disney and John Wayne versions. Others claim he survived the battle along with about five or six others only to be captured and then lined up against the wall and shot which is depicted in the most recent version starring Billy Bob Thornton. So the point is that any movie you see about the Alamo is going to be mainly conjecture. Now I would imagine we'd all like to hope and believe that Crockett went down like the Walt Disney version depicts it, where as the sole surviving defender he takes on the entire Mexican army single handedly by swinging his rifle butt at everybody knocking them over right and left.

Last Command has Travis taking a head shot, which is what happened.